beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the wholesale business of industrial equipment under the trade name of “D”, and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who runs the manufacturing business.
B. From November 2015 to January 2016, the Plaintiff supplied goods, such as industrial equipment, etc. equivalent to KRW 38,204,705 (including surtax) to “F”.
C. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 13,971,600 in total, including KRW 8,971,600 on December 1, 2015 and KRW 5,000,00 on February 2, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment of the party involved
A. Regarding the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the unpaid goods, the Defendant only lent the business registration name of “F” to G, but did not participate in the operation and denied its payment responsibility.
B. According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the Defendant leased only the name of business registration to G, and the fact that G actually operated “F” is recognized.
However, Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides that "a person who has allowed another person to run his/her business using his/her name shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to a third party who trades his/her own name with him/her as the owner of the business." According to the aforementioned evidence, the defendant is entered in the name of the business operator of F, the name of the representative of each tax invoice issued by the plaintiff concerning the goods supplied to F, as well as the name of the representative of the plaintiff on each tax invoice issued by the plaintiff for the goods supplied to F, and the fact that the money was remitted from the account in the defendant's name to the plaintiff on December 1, 2015. Thus, the plaintiff supplied the goods to the plaintiff on February 2, 2016, by mistake of the defendant as the business operator of F. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the price of the goods in this case to the plaintiff in accordance with the above provisions of the Commercial Act.